NationStates Jolt Archive

This is cross-posted at my blog. (http://incertus.blogspot.com) Feel free to comment either here or there, although be warned that I have a much quicker trigger finger with trolling in the comments there, since I have control and all. I plan on expanding this argument in the coming days and weeks, but this is a start.


Throughout the past two years, when I've gotten into online arguments with conservatives, invariably they've said that Democrats (by which they mean liberals) are out of touch with the mainstream of American thought. Ever since the election on Tuesday, I've been wondering about that, and I've come to the conclusion that they may well be right. Not because overall attitudes have changed, but because there's a different group of people making their presence felt these days.

We have to face it--the evangelical movement has made its mark in the political and social arenas, and as a result, the country has lurched rightward on significant issues like abortion rights and gay rights. And because their socially libertarian brethren in the Republican party haven't stood up to them, these evangelicals are now in a position to pull the country even farther to the right. Because of this, the mainstream, which was once moving toward greater social justice and overall equality, has now shifted back toward the Puritanical.

We're now looking at a group that is largely dictating morality in Biblical terms, even though you'd never know it from watching network or cable tv, but it is happening, and they've managed, with the help of their brethren in the Republican party, to fashion an electoral majority. By my lights, that makes them the mainstream, painful as that idea may be.

So what does that mean? It means that I'm damn glad I'm out of the mainstream. If being in the mainstream means that I have to be a gay-hater, that I have to believe that the Bible is absolute truth and the only moral guide to follow, and that it's my duty to legislate that morality on the infidels (read, liberals), then I'll stay over here on the left, well out of the mainstream, thanks just the same.

Bill Clinton's book blames it on gun control as well. If the Dem's gave that up on a national level they'd probably do better in the rest of the country.

One can only hope it is temporary, as the Puritans eventually turned out to be.

Throughout the past two years, when I've gotten into online arguments with conservatives, invariably they've said that Democrats (by which they mean liberals) are out of touch with the mainstream of American thought.

Actually, there isn't a whole lot of "thought" in the American mainstream. It's a bunch of people who strongly believe that their views are right and have absolutely no problem with forcing their views on others using the medium of government. And that's not just the religious right. There are leftists (what passes for a leftist in the U.S.) who do the same thing. Almost everyone in America makes the basic, and often unarticulated, assumption that they have every right to use the government to take away the freedoms of others.

It's what scares me about my parents' generation's approach to politics. They violate the principal of "do unto others..." by supporting the legislation of morality on those who don't share their views. They want to take away the God-given free will of their fellow human beings. These people consistently violate their religion's morality in order to prop up their moral code. They may as well be fucking for chastity.

Well, we're just sitting here in Canada looking down at you, so.... wait. Not down.... "South". Yeah, that's less offensive. Anyway, don't you be sending more gays up here to get married! Or old people to get flu shots! And if abortion becomes illegal down there... well, damn, I don't even want to think about that exodus. Are we moving left or are you moving right? Damn, this is disconcerting.... and how come the Canadian dollar is going up to nearly $0.83 US? Are we doing something right, or are you doing something wrong? You and your crazy mainstream.

Well, we're just sitting here in Canada looking down at you, so.... wait. Not down.... "South". Yeah, that's less offensive. Anyway, don't you be sending more gays up here to get married! Or old people to get flu shots! And if abortion becomes illegal down there... well, damn, I don't even want to think about that exodus. Are we moving left or are you moving right? Damn, this is disconcerting.... and how come the Canadian dollar is going up to nearly $0.83 US? Are we doing something right, or are you doing something wrong? You and your crazy mainstream.

If you guys had not implemented same-sex "marriage", America would not have moved to the right. Bush would still have won, but only at the price of moving leftward before the election.

P.S. Please-please don't forget to do something crazy and outrageous in 2007 and save us from Hillary.

Well said.

Being in the mainstream usually gets you swept over the waterfall.

If you guys had not implemented same-sex "marriage", America would not have moved to the right. Bush would still have won, but only at the price of moving leftward before the election.

P.S. Please-please don't forget to do something crazy and outrageous in 2007 and save us from Hillary.
Dude, give us a break here. We've already done crazy things like actually have enough flu vaccinations, cheap prescription drugs, lower legal drinking age, lower age of sexual consent... what the hell more do you want from us?
And there's no reason to use quotation marks on the word marriage. That's like me saying I find it interesting many Americans support a "constitutional" ban on gay marriages. Kinda silly, eh?

Dude, give us a break here. We've already done crazy things like actually have enough flu vaccinations, cheap prescription drugs, lower legal drinking age, lower age of sexual consent... what the hell more do you want from us?

I don't know....

Hmm....... I know, how about incorporating Sharia into your civil law.

That should do it.

The funniest thing ive ever heard is how Americans call canada...europe..australia "left leaning." Ok guys...if 90% of the free world is sitting left of you? You are actually to the right...a median point has to be judged by the ...well average. America ..for the most part is a very conservative right leaning country compared to most of the rest of the world. In SILLY non-issues too like peoples sex lives and obscenity.

hillary. Jesus fucking christ, there is no way she can win. I hope the rest of my liberal buddies can see that.

Yeah, at this rate I'm moving to canada. The drug companies can't rip you off when the government sets the price. I also love how conservatives are all about free trade untill it hurts the drug companies and starts helping american consumers.

The funniest thing ive ever heard is how Americans call canada...europe..australia "left leaning." Ok guys...if 90% of the free world is sitting left of you? You are actually to the right...a median point has to be judged by the ...well average. America ..for the most part is a very conservative right leaning country compared to most of the rest of the world. In SILLY non-issues too like peoples sex lives and obscenity.

Indeed. In any other country, Kerry would be seen as way right of center. Hehehe.

And there's no reason to use quotation marks on the word marriage. That's like me saying I find it interesting many Americans support a "constitutional" ban on gay marriages. Kinda silly, eh?

Except you are right. There is nothing constitutional about it.

Indeed. In any other country, Kerry would be seen as way right of center. Hehehe.

In any other country, Kerry would be able to speak his mind. I mean, no body belived it when he say he was not for gay marriage.

In any other country, Kerry would be able to speak his mind. I mean, no body belived it when he say he was not for gay marriage.

Old Republican Maneuver. They convince people that their opponent can't possibly be on the same side of an issue they are. Like the Jedi Mind Trick, it only works on the weak minded.

Kerry is far to authoritarian for my tastes.

Except you are right. There is nothing constitutional about it.
Not judging, not judging, not judging.... :rolleyes:

Old Republican Maneuver. They convince people that their opponent can't possibly be on the same side of an issue they are. Like the Jedi Mind Trick, it only works on the weak minded.

Kerry is far to authoritarian for my tastes.

Don't you think those pointless parades around the countryside in the guise of Duck hunting really hurt Kerry though. I mean what a prat, he just came of as an idiot. He should have stuck to his windsurfing, at least he actually likes that.

Don't you think those pointless parades around the countryside in the guise of Duck hunting really hurt Kerry though. I mean what a prat, he just came of as an idiot. He should have stuck to his windsurfing, at least he actually likes that.

Kerry should never have been the democratic candidate. I was saying that back during the Primaries. Would have been better off with Edwards. At least you can tell him and Bush apart.

If it were Bush versus Clark, I would have voted for Clark.

Of course, if it were McCain versus Kerry, I would've voted for McCain.

The trouble with the USofA is that the majority of people are not taught how to think in high school, do not go on to college, and get all their information from Fox News. :gundge:

Don't you think those pointless parades around the countryside in the guise of Duck hunting really hurt Kerry though. I mean what a prat, he just came of as an idiot. He should have stuck to his windsurfing, at least he actually likes that.

I agree completely. One of the main reasons I think he lost was due to his lack of authenticity. The republicans hammered this through, with Swift Boat and flip-flopping. Two meaningless topics but when coupled with his apparent desire to split the difference so he wouldn't anger anybody, and his horrible attempts at sports just made him look fake.

Amazing, the same thing happened to Gore. Thats what has happened to America through mass marketing. People respond to the image not what is behind it. Look at culture, food, politics; it all revolves around image. The democrats need to figure that out.

Kerry should never have been the democratic candidate. I was saying that back during the Primaries. Would have been better off with Edwards. At least you can tell him and Bush apart.

If it were Bush versus Clark, I would have voted for Clark.

Of course, if it were McCain versus Kerry, I would've voted for McCain.


Well even though I was for Bush, I've said the same thing all along about Kerry. The problem is, he didn't help himself at all because he tried to pander so much - like the duck hunting - and ended up just turning people off.

The larger issue is, if the Dems want to become competitive nationally, they are going to have to go through a period of self examination policy wide. Bush only won by a very close margin, so I think if they just put up a candidate that could be percieved as more moderate on a few wedge issues they would have a really good chance.

Unfortunatley it looks like they have decided that all Republicans are christian zealots instead - and therefore by extension morons. And I can't help but think that that's the attitude that helped loose the election.

Edit: And for the record, even though he was more left wing than Kerry, if the party had stuck with Dean we'd have a new president in the White House in Jan. He seemed really authentic, and let's face it he was the one who put energy into the Dems campaign in the first place.

Well even though I was for Bush, I've said the same thing all along about Kerry. The problem is, he didn't help himself at all because he tried to pander so much - like the duck hunting - and ended up just turning people off.

The larger issue is, if the Dems want to become competitive nationally, they are going to have to go through a period of self examination policy wide. Bush only won by a very close margin, so I think if they just put up a candidate that could be percieved as more moderate on a few wedge issues they would have a really good chance.

Unfortunatley it looks like they have decided that all Republicans are christian zealots instead - and therefore by extension morons. And I can't help but think that that's the attitude that helped loose the election.

Edit: And for the record, even though he was more left wing than Kerry, if the party had stuck with Dean we'd have a new president in the White House in Jan. He seemed really authentic, and let's face it he was the one who put energy into the Dems campaign in the first place.

When 11 states(all of which voted for Bush) also vote for state constitutional amendments banning gay marriages by huge margins, it sure seems like christian zealots are running the Republican Party. I don't blame them for thinking it.

What I wonder is how the economic conservative and constutionally minded libertarian republicans can stomach a choice like Bush. I mean, I always thought republicans were for SMALLER government. Heh.

Economically, the only difference between Bush and Kerry was taxes. Kerry wanted to tax big and spend big. Bush wanted to tax small and spend big anyway.

How the hell could any real conservative vote for either of them?

When 11 states(all of which voted for Bush) also vote for state constitutional amendments banning gay marriages by huge margins, it sure seems like christian zealots are running the Republican Party. I don't blame them for thinking it.

What I wonder is how the economic conservative and constutionally minded libertarian republicans can stomach a choice like Bush. I mean, I always thought republicans were for SMALLER government. Heh.

Economically, the only difference between Bush and Kerry was taxes. Kerry wanted to tax big and spend big. Bush wanted to tax small and spend big anyway.

How the hell could any real conservative vote for either of them?

Yes but gay marriage is only a small part of the picture. Look at Michigan, they banned it too, but returned Kerry and Obama.

Anyway, kerry didn't need to win every state, he just needed to win a few more. All the dems have to do is find a few wedge issues where their party is already divided and co-opt the republican postion.

Dean would have been good in this respect because I think he would have been acceptable for those who were voting over gun control. (Look at his home state). Kerry was far to much the "big city" liberal to come across as "trustworthy" on that issue and his new-found interest in hunting probably only reinforced that perception. This probably resulted in driving out more of the NRA base.

As to the true conservative/libertarian aspect of the whole election, I think you a right that, by and large, that group is now in the political wilderness and is only voting republican out of inertia/historical aliegence. However it will be extremely difficult for the Dems to find a candidate that can woo their vote.

But if the Dems just look at is as they were defeated solely by right wing christians, then they will not be able to formulate a really effective strategy to get a candidate in the white house.

Yes but gay marriage is only a small part of the picture. Look at Michigan, they banned it too, but returned Kerry and Obama.

Anyway, kerry didn't need to win every state, he just needed to win a few more. All the dems have to do is find a few wedge issues where their party is already divided and co-opt the republican postion.

Dean would have been good in this respect because I think he would have been acceptable for those who were voting over gun control. (Look at his home state). Kerry was far to much the "big city" liberal to come across as "trustworthy" on that issue and his new-found interest in hunting probably only reinforced that perception. This probably resulted in driving out more of the NRA base.

As to the true conservative/libertarian aspect of the whole election, I think you a right that, by and large, that group is now in the political wilderness and is only voting republican out of inertia/historical aliegence. However it will be extremely difficult for the Dems to find a candidate that can woo their vote.

But if the Dems just look at is as they were defeated solely by right wing christians, then they will not be able to formulate a really effective strategy to get a candidate in the white house.

I think that whether or not we have a Democratic President in 08 will depend more on the Republicans than anything else. They have a significant majority in the House and Senate as well as the Presidency. They have no obstacles to their agenda, and therefore, no excuses. If the country is better off in four years, the Democrats won't have a chance. And who would need them? If this country is no better off in four years, the Republicans will have nobody to blame.

I think that whether or not we have a Democratic President in 08 will depend more on the Republicans than anything else. They have a significant majority in the House and Senate as well as the Presidency. They have no obstacles to their agenda, and therefore, no excuses. If the country is better off in four years, the Democrats won't have a chance. And who would need them? If this country is no better off in four years, the Republicans will have nobody to blame.

It's a funny thing though, almost everyone (except the whacko's at either end) worries about one party having too much power. Plus people sometimes just get tired of who is in office and want a fresh face. So even if the country is running amazingly in 2008, I could see a strong Dem defeating a weak Repub. It happened with Nixon v. Kennedy (even though that was a squeaker).

When 11 states(all of which voted for Bush) also vote for state constitutional amendments banning gay marriages by huge margins, it sure seems like christian zealots are running the Republican Party. I don't blame them for thinking it.

What I wonder is how the economic conservative and constutionally minded libertarian republicans can stomach a choice like Bush. I mean, I always thought republicans were for SMALLER government. Heh.

Economically, the only difference between Bush and Kerry was taxes. Kerry wanted to tax big and spend big. Bush wanted to tax small and spend big anyway.

How the hell could any real conservative vote for either of them?

Not correct. Oregon went to kerry, and the ban passed by about 3 percent.

I don't know....

Hmm....... I know, how about incorporating Sharia into your civil law.

That should do it.

But they've ALREADY done it. At least in Ontario. Seriously, folks, they actually have OFFICIAL Sharia courts there. Of course, when they finally start cutting off limbs (and they will sooner or later!), we should completely close the border and let the Canadians enjoy the fruits of their multiculturalism.

You do realize.....that america imports far more than it exports, that our rate of consumption is far higher than our ability to produce goods to consume...and that alienating trade partners enough to get an embargo on america would have chaos reigning in the streets in a matter of months.

The trouble with the USofA is that the majority of people are not taught how to think in high school, do not go on to college, and get all their information from Fox News. :gundge:


Not just in the US, I'm sorry to say.

In the UK it tends to be the Papers rather than TV (I'm not calling them News papers as most only hold comment not information).

Not correct. Oregon went to kerry, and the ban passed by about 3 percent.

Yeah. I was wrong about Michigan too.

I still can't believe that there are so many peple who don't realize that the purpose of constitutions is to limit government. Not the people.

Dude, give us a break here. We've already done crazy things like actually have enough flu vaccinations, cheap prescription drugs, lower legal drinking age, lower age of sexual consent... what the hell more do you want from us?
And there's no reason to use quotation marks on the word marriage. That's like me saying I find it interesting many Americans support a "constitutional" ban on gay marriages. Kinda silly, eh?

Don't even get me started on prescription drugs - I'm sick and tired of subsidizing Canada and half the world. I really-really wish our pharmaceutical companies were banned from exporting drugs to Canada. Canadians could still buy them from our wholesale distributors. But of course, there they would charged just regular price. And if they don't like it - well, they can make their own drugs. Of course, they'd need to do a lot of R&D first. But I am fed up with the situation where the whole world enjoys the fruits of our R&D while only we actually pay for it.

And yes, there's a good reason to use quotation marks on the word marriage. By definition it means a union of a man and a woman, and any other usage warrants quotation marks. Words have meanings. If I call myself a "Martian" it does not yet make it so.

Don't even get me started on prescription drugs - I'm sick and tired of subsidizing Canada and half the world. I really-really wish our pharmaceutical companies were banned from exporting drugs to Canada. Canadians could still buy them from our wholesale distributors. But of course, there they would charged just regular price. And if they don't like it - well, they can make their own drugs. Of course, they'd need to do a lot of R&D first. But I am fed up with the situation where the whole world enjoys the fruits of our R&D while only we actually pay for it.

And yes, there's a good reason to use quotation marks on the word marriage. By definition it means a union of a man and a woman, and any other usage warrants quotation marks. Words have meanings. If I call myself a "Martian" it does not yet make it so.


You ARE aware that pharmaceutical companies STILL make a profit from drugs shipped overseas....otherwise they WOULDNT ship there. The difference is the profit margin is probably more along say 80% as compared to the 200% or more some drugs are selling for.

I still can't believe that there are so many peple who don't realize that the purpose of constitutions is to limit government. Not the people.

Yes, that's what those amendments actually do - limit the government's ability to redefine the meaning of most basic words (like "marriage"). I'm not aware of any limitations those amendments place on any people (e.g. people still can copulate with any consenting adult, etc.).

You ARE aware that pharmaceutical companies STILL make a profit from drugs shipped overseas....otherwise they WOULDNT ship there. The difference is the profit margin is probably more along say 80% as compared to the 200% or more some drugs are selling for.


Actually they make a profit with respect to production cost. When the actual cost (production + RD + RD for failed drug lines) is looked at, they are selling them for a loss.

Yeah. I was wrong about Michigan too.

I still can't believe that there are so many peple who don't realize that the purpose of constitutions is to limit government. Not the people.


Funnily enough, that point escapes just about everyone.

Government of limited powers. Pshaw.

You ARE aware that pharmaceutical companies STILL make a profit from drugs shipped overseas....otherwise they WOULDNT ship there. The difference is the profit margin is probably more along say 80% as compared to the 200% or more some drugs are selling for.

200%? Hah! Closer to 20,000%. I'm not kidding. The profit margin on most pharmaceuticals is immense! But then again, I understand the need for it. R&D is very expensive. They have a huge investment to pay for in each drug they manufacture.

They sell it for as much as they can. But in some places, people can't afford those prices. So rather than not sel there, they sell for less. Since it's pure profit, it doesn't really matter what they charge.

I don't sweat the companies making their profit. What I gripe about is that this gives them no incentive to streamline their R&D costs. If they were forced to charge everyone the same reasonable price due to a completely free international market, maybe they'd reduce their operating costs.

Yes, that's what those amendments actually do - limit the government's ability to redefine the meaning of most basic words (like "marriage"). I'm not aware of any limitations those amendments place on any people (e.g. people still can copulate with any consenting adult, etc.). It gives the government the right to discriminate against people. It says that certain people cannot enter into a legal contract. What's next? Gay people can't own property? Or have a credit card? Hmm? When the government gets into the business of deciding who can do business with whom, then when do they stop?

Or perhaps you'd like to look at this from a religious point of view. I'm a good christian, so I'm willing to do that. When the government starts deciding who churches can marry, how long will it be before they start deciding who can attend them? Or what churches can do with their money? Or start making certain their religious texts agree with governmental regulations?

Actually they make a profit with respect to production cost. When the actual cost (production + RD + RD for failed drug lines) is looked at, they are selling them for a loss.

This would be fine if a significant percentage of the money sent to them and or the work performed to do the research wasnt federal subsidy. Theyre profiting on taxpayer dollars and claiming its to cover R+D

You ARE aware that pharmaceutical companies STILL make a profit from drugs shipped overseas....otherwise they WOULDNT ship there. The difference is the profit margin is probably more along say 80% as compared to the 200% or more some drugs are selling for.

No, it's more complicated than that. Once you have done R&D and got the mass production going, the <I>marginal</I> cost of producing an extra pill is very small (after all, pills are usually very small and don't take a lot of raw materials). So it is actually possible to sell that extra pill cheaply and still make a profit. Provided that somehow you have already covered the cost of R&D and other fixed costs. In reality all those costs are covered by drug prices in the US market. That makes it possible to sell the same drugs cheaper in <I>other</I> markets - drug companies only have to recover marginal costs of production then. So in effect other countries benefit from R&D paid for by American consumers. By the way, when you think of it, reimportation of drugs from Canada (proposed by many) makes as much sense as pulling oneself by the bootstraps. As I said, drugs can be sold cheaper only in <I>other</I> markets. Once those other markets effectively become part of the US market, either the prices there raise to US levels, or they simply don't have any drugs on the market.

No, it's more complicated than that. Once you have done R&D and got the mass production going, the <I>marginal</I> cost of producing an extra pill is very small (after all, pills are usually very small and don't take a lot of raw materials). So it is actually possible to sell that extra pill cheaply and still make a profit. Provided that somehow you have already covered the cost of R&D and other fixed costs. In reality all those costs are covered by drug prices in the US market. That makes it possible to sell the same drugs cheaper in <I>other</I> markets - drug companies only have to recover marginal costs of production then. So in effect other countries benefit from R&D paid for by American consumers. By the way, when you think of it, reimportation of drugs from Canada (proposed by many) makes as much sense as pulling oneself by the bootstraps. As I said, drugs can be sold cheaper only in <I>other</I> markets. Once those other markets effectively become part of the US market, either the prices there raise to US levels, or they simply don't have any drugs on the market.

No, the real problem is that the drug companies need to sell their drugs at high prices to subsidize future R&D, and we should stop complaining so much about the high prices because if they lose the incentive (making money) for researching new drugs, then we'll never see cures for diseases that we really need.

It gives the government the right to discriminate against people. It says that certain people cannot enter into a legal contract.

Marriage is much more than a legal contract, and any two (or three or whatever) people can actually enter into any leagl contract, i.e. they can have joint property ownership, power of attorney vis. each other etc. Yes, unlike married couples, homosexual couples can not have children, but the fact that certain sexual practices can not result in conception is not really due to government discrimination.

This would be fine if a significant percentage of the money sent to them and or the work performed to do the research wasnt federal subsidy. Theyre profiting on taxpayer dollars and claiming its to cover R+D

I don't think it's a significant percentage. It costs around $5 billion per drug or something. The total size of the world market is $450 bn. The US makes up around $200bn. Now even assuming that is all pure profit, (which its not) that's only forty drugs a year.

Marriage is much more than a legal contract, and any two (or three or whatever) people can actually enter into any leagl contract, i.e. they can have joint property ownership, power of attorney vis. each other etc. Yes, unlike married couples, homosexual couples can not have children, but the fact that certain sexual practices can not result in conception is not really due to government discrimination.

Isn't the definition of marriage up to the church to decide, and not the government?

No, the real problem is that the drug companies need to sell their drugs at high prices to subsidize future R&D, and we should stop complaining so much about the high prices because if they lose the incentive (making money) for researching new drugs, then we'll never see cures for diseases that we really need.

OK. But it's really sorta chicken and egg question - do drug prices pay for past or future R&D. You are probably right - I've just remembered that pharmaceutical industry has the lowest debt-to-equity ratio of all industries, so they probably pay for current R&D mostly from past profits rather than current debt (paid for by future profits). Anyway, if they stop R&D it will be even worse than you say, since microorganisms constantly mutate and become drug resistant, so eventually even our old cures will not work (without new R&D) and then we are back to square one where a simple pneumonia may well kill you.

Marriage is much more than a legal contract, and any two (or three or whatever) people can actually enter into any leagl contract, i.e. they can have joint property ownership, power of attorney vis. each other etc. Yes, unlike married couples, homosexual couples can not have children, but the fact that certain sexual practices can not result in conception is not really due to government discrimination.

To the government is not more than a legal contract. The government is constitutionally bound to refrain from adding any other meaning. Thus, bans on same sex marriages are unconstitutional.

It gives the government the right to discriminate against people. It says that certain people cannot enter into a legal contract. What's next? Gay people can't own property? Or have a credit card? Hmm? When the government gets into the business of deciding who can do business with whom, then when do they stop?

Or perhaps you'd like to look at this from a religious point of view. I'm a good christian, so I'm willing to do that. When the government starts deciding who churches can marry, how long will it be before they start deciding who can attend them? Or what churches can do with their money? Or start making certain their religious texts agree with governmental regulations?

I agree with your sentiments but I'm afraid this is the slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Marriage is much more than a legal contract, and any two (or three or whatever) people can actually enter into any leagl contract, i.e. they can have joint property ownership, power of attorney vis. each other etc. Yes, unlike married couples, homosexual couples can not have children, but the fact that certain sexual practices can not result in conception is not really due to government discrimination.

Marriage as far as the government is concerned is and should remain a strictly legal affair. Your religion can attach all the mystical hoopla it wants to to the word marriage, but as far as the government is concerned, it should be open to any consenting individuals who so desire to enter into the legal contract that is marriage. Specifically, all the financial and legal matters that are attached to a marriage, such as inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, custody rights, et. al.

Isn't the definition of marriage up to the church to decide, and not the government?

Exactly, that's what those amendments say - they just freeze the definition that all Western societies reached many centuries ago and prevent the government from redefining it. By the way, constituions don't come from governments - they come from people. So it is the people (as in "We, the People...") who democratically (and overwhelmingly) decided to codify the standard definition of marriage in writing and prevent the government from messing with it. So yes, it is in fact limited government, i.e. people putting limits on the government.

OK. But it's really sorta chicken and egg question - do drug prices pay for past or future R&D. You are probably right - I've just remembered that pharmaceutical industry has the lowest debt-to-equity ratio of all industries, so they probably pay for current R&D mostly from past profits rather than current debt (paid for by future profits). Anyway, if they stop R&D it will be even worse than you say, since microorganisms constantly mutate and become drug resistant, so eventually even our old cures will not work (without new R&D) and then we are back to square one where a simple pneumonia may well kill you.

Drug prices most assuredly pay more for future R&D. The drug companies take all this money they get from investors, and develop a drug. It sells wildly. They say, "Hey, we just got filthy rich off of that, let's do it some more." So they go and research the cure to another disease. As distasteful as you may or may not find it, capitalism is going to do alot more for the drive for the cure for diseases like cancer or AIDS than altruism will.

I agree with your sentiments but I'm afraid this is the slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Actually, we've been slipping for some time now. That document is an oversimplification. It ignores such concepts as precedent. It suggests that just because X may not necesssarily lead to Y, that X doesn't make Y easier to accomplish.

Marriage as far as the government is concerned is and should remain a strictly legal affair. Your religion can attach all the mystical hoopla it wants to to the word marriage, but as far as the government is concerned, it should be open to any consenting individuals who so desire to enter into the legal contract that is marriage. Specifically, all the financial and legal matters that are attached to a marriage, such as inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, custody rights, et. al.

Just to play devil's advocate here, can't all those right's be obtained (with the exception of suvivors benefits in the social security system) by legal contract already.

Exactly, that's what those amendments say - they just freeze the definition that all Western societies reached many centuries ago and prevent the government from redefining it. By the way, constituions don't come from governments - they come from people. So it is the people (as in "We, the People...") who democratically (and overwhelmingly) decided to codify the standard definition of marriage in writing and prevent the government from messing with it. So yes, it is in fact limited government, i.e. people putting limits on the government.

The government's job is not to define OR redefine marriage. The churches do that. If a church decides who can get married, that is the definition of marriage. For the government to deny the right of religion to do so by 'freezing' the definition is a violation of the First Amendment.

The government's job is not to define OR redefine marriage. The churches do that. If a church decides who can get married, that is the definition of marriage. For the government to deny the right of religion to do so by 'freezing' the definition is a violation of the First Amendment.

A good point, but I can tell you from experience that you are about to hear the polygamy objection.

Just to play devil's advocate here, can't all those right's be obtained (with the exception of suvivors benefits in the social security system) by legal contract already.

No, not specifically. If my boyfriend were to die suddenly without leaving a will, I could not inherit his estate. If my boyfriend had a child that I helped raised, and he died, I would have a hell of a fight to retain custody. At any rate, it's not a matter of whether or not they could attain those rights through alternate methods. The matter is that they should be given the same rights through the same means as everyone else. Why should they be different? As I see it, it's all a matter of equality.

A good point, but I can tell you from experience that you are about to hear the polygamy objection.

I personally have no problems with polygamy. If 19 people want to all jointly share the same things that one man and one woman can share, why shouldn't they all be able to? What harm is that causing anyone besides themselves?

Although I should footnote that with "as long as they can consent". No arguments about "what about a man and a 5 year old" or "what about a man and his toaster" are valid.

No, not specifically. If my boyfriend were to die suddenly without leaving a will, I could not inherit his estate. If my boyfriend had a child that I helped raised, and he died, I would have a hell of a fight to retain custody. At any rate, it's not a matter of whether or not they could attain those rights through alternate methods. The matter is that they should be given the same rights through the same means as everyone else. Why should they be different? As I see it, it's all a matter of equality.

All true, but then that makes marriage a legal status and not a contractual affair. All else being equal the government is going to argue it has the complete right to define it anyway it sees fit. In much the same way it occasionally fiddles with adoption law.

Bah, just give everyone civil unions. That's the best way. What's more when idiots show up to get a civil union with their sister or something to prove a point, just ignore them and let them get on with it. After all it is they who'll have to live with it - and pay for the divorce.

A good point, but I can tell you from experience that you are about to hear the polygamy objection.

Polygamy is up to the churches too.

If three consenting adults wish to marry, and the church is willing to marry them, then that's all, folks. The government has no right to interfere.

I personally have no problems with polygamy. If 19 people want to all jointly share the same things that one man and one woman can share, why shouldn't they all be able to? What harm is that causing anyone besides themselves?

Although I should footnote that with "as long as they can consent". No arguments about "what about a man and a 5 year old" or "what about a man and his toaster" are valid.

Siblings - ?

I agree with your sentiments but I'm afraid this is the slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Just FYI, slippery-slope is only a fallacy when it is unsubstantiated or exaggerated. When the consequences of an action are reasonably established, the slippery-slope is a valid argument. It's just that in so many instances it's unfortunately used incorrectly.

A good point, but I can tell you from experience that you are about to hear the polygamy objection.

I had a debate with a couple of friends about gay marriage and how it relates to polygamy and intrafamily marriage. I discovered that, while I could argue that polygamy would change the legal construction of a marriage and would not be permissable, I had no argument against marriage between brother and sister, so I just said we should allow that, too. It'll never happen but an I right?

All true, but then that makes marriage a legal status and not a contractual affair. All else being equal the government is going to argue it has the complete right to define it anyway it sees fit. In much the same way it occasionally fiddles with adoption law.

Bah, just give everyone civil unions. That's the best way. What's more when idiots show up to get a civil union with their sister or something to prove a point, just ignore them and let them get on with it. After all it is they who'll have to live with it - and pay for the divorce.

Yes, and I think marriage should be a legal status with accompanying contractual requirements. And I don't believe the government should be able to argue that it has the complete right to define it anyway it sees fit, but that's a whole other can of worms.

And, yes, I agree completely. Let churches give away the title of marriage. The government can hand out civil unions. That way everyone is happy, except for the super-ultra-mega-right, who don't count, and the super-extra-militant gays, who don't count. I think the gay people who want to force the church to marry gays are completely in the wrong, as it is the choice of each religion what it does and does not allow, but the government should be representative of the people, and therefore should not be biased towards one group of people or biased against another.

As a final point, I agree. Allow incest. Let people make mistakes for themselves. Let them find out. As long as actual physical harm will not result from it, let them learn from their errors. I don't like this trend in American government for the system to lead people along their lives by the hand like an overbearing parent. "No, that's bad. Don't touch that." "Here, do this, this is good for you." Let people live their lives the way they want, good or bad. The government shouldn't have an inherent responsibility towards making sure everyone lives their life the right way.

Siblings - ?

Sure, why not? As long as they are reasonably aware of the detriments to intra-familial relations, then let them at it. People can make their own decisions. However, if they are of the variety that is unaware of the downsides of intra-familial relations, then I think they should at least be made knowledgable of the rammifications before they are granted their union.

Sure, why not? As long as they are reasonably aware of the detriments to intra-familial relations, then let them at it. People can make their own decisions. However, if they are of the variety that is unaware of the downsides of intra-familial relations, then I think they should at least be made knowledgable of the rammifications before they are granted their union.


Funnily enough, Colorado allows adoptive siblings to marry already. Just not blood ones. In any event, I'm sure it will almost never happen, however like I said, there are bound to be a rash of those at the begining to "prove" a point. I think letting them get on with it would be tremendously funny.

Funnily enough, Colorado allows adoptive siblings to marry already. Just not blood ones. In any event, I'm sure it will almost never happen, however like I said, there are bound to be a rash of those at the begining to "prove" a point. I think letting them get on with it would be tremendously funny.

Well, going against my previous contention that the government shouldn't lead people by the hand, I think that potential blood-related spouses should at least be made known the problems with their relations before they are allowed to wed. At least so they understand and accept the consequences. To prevent potential "YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD US THIS WOULD HAPPEN" lawsuits against the government.

Well, going against my previous contention that the government shouldn't lead people by the hand, I think that potential blood-related spouses should at least be made known the problems with their relations before they are allowed to wed. At least so they understand and accept the consequences. To prevent potential "YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD US THIS WOULD HAPPEN" lawsuits against the government.

While I see your point, is there actually anyone out there that is not aware of the downside to concieving children with a sibling. I thought that was pretty well understood by now. I suppose we could stick a disclaimer on the form though.

THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH INCEST?!!! :eek: :eek:

OMG, I'M IN TROUBLE!!!!

THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH INCEST?!!! :eek: :eek:

OMG, I'M IN TROUBLE!!!!

LOL, no you silly. We just said it's okay. It's a little risky however, and we will laugh at you when the baby has flippers.

LOL, no you silly. We just said it's okay. It's a little risky however, and we will laugh at you when the baby has flippers.


THERE WERE ONLY A COUPLE OF FLIPPER BABIES!!



PS: Thank you Canada....for the greatest sketch comedy show of all time.

LOL, no you silly. We just said it's okay. It's a little risky however, and we will laugh at you when the baby has flippers.

I can't wait until I have my my little sea child. It will need gills to go along with the flippers, because I already turned it's room into an aquarium.

While I see your point, is there actually anyone out there that is not aware of the downside to concieving children with a sibling. I thought that was pretty well understood by now. I suppose we could stick a disclaimer on the form though.

I imagine there are still people who honestly don't know the genetic problems with intra-familial relations. I would advocate more than just a disclaimer, perhaps a short educational course on the matter.

I can't wait until I have my my little sea child. It will need gills to go along with the flippers, because I already turned it's room into an aquarium.

Now who could be against that. It sounds adorable. A little flipper-gill sea child. Maybe we should breed a race of sea people. That would be cool.

I imagine there are still people who honestly don't know the genetic problems with intra-familial relations. I would advocate more than just a disclaimer, perhaps a short educational course on the matter.

Do you think it would make any difference. I mean if everybody else hadn't told them by that point, I'm not sure a few training videos would change their minds.

Anyway that sounds a lot like spending money to protect idiots from themselves.

Polygamy is up to the churches too.

If three consenting adults wish to marry, and the church is willing to marry them, then that's all, folks. The government has no right to interfere.

Just wanted to point out that if marriage is defined in the churches, then that undermines government pressure to marry gays in a church or any arguements that say marriage lost its religious ties when the government got involved. It would also prevent any legal challenges from gays wanting to get married in a church that doesn't want them to.

I personally think that marriage should be up to the churches only and not involved in government. All rights should be obtained through alternate methods, but reproductive rights would still be for straight married couples. Gay couples could obtain adoption rights for any offspring one of them has. (Face it, one of them would not be a real parent, but would be a step parent.)

Do you think it would make any difference. I mean if everybody else hadn't told them by that point, I'm not sure a few training videos would change their minds.

Anyway that sounds a lot like spending money to protect idiots from themselves.

Perhaps. But I prefer to see it as insurance on future lawsuits against the government. Make them sign a waiver absolving everyone besides themselves from all responsibility for whatever results from the relationship. Because I think the people who would marry their kin are the same kind who would sue the government without realizing it's like taking money out of your wallet and putting it in your front pocket and thinking you've just made money.

I just realized. When incertonia comes back and sees his thread about the mainstream has degenerated into a discussion about flipper children, he's going to flip out. (pun unintended). Still it should tell him something about the mainstream though.

Now who could be against that. It sounds adorable. A little flipper-gill sea child. Maybe we should breed a race of sea people. That would be cool.

Have you seen Waterworld? WE NEED THEM.

Have you seen Waterworld? WE NEED THEM.

Yeah I saw waterworld, and I have something to say: "Kevin Costner, give me my $9 back you bastard. Your movie sucked."

Have you seen Waterworld? WE NEED THEM.

Worst movie EVER

Worst movie EVER

No dude, the postman was worse.

No dude, the postman was worse.

I cried during Field of Dreams when the guy plays catch with his dad, and goddamn if I don't hate Kevin Costner. Emasculating me like that. Son of a bitch.

I cried during Field of Dreams when the guy plays catch with his dad, and goddamn if I don't hate Kevin Costner. Emasculating me like that. Son of a bitch.

You see, I always knew that S.O.B. was evil and this proves it.

When I was a kid my best friend cried at the remake of King Kong when the big monkey died. I still give him dead arms for that occassionaly,

"United States of Canada"
ROFL


Yeah, I have been thinking we've slowly been right-shifting for a while now.

I just realized. When incertonia comes back and sees his thread about the mainstream has degenerated into a discussion about flipper children, he's going to flip out. (pun unintended). Still it should tell him something about the mainstream though.
Well, I would have flipped out if I didn't already know what happens to threads on this forum as a matter of course. I appreciate the thought, though. :D